coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Perm Region.
6.  In February 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.
7.  On 5 March 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Totskiy District of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 20,989.90 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 608 euros). The judgment was not appealed against.
8.  On 25 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 18 July 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. It advised the applicant to apply to the Orenburg regional department of the Ministry of Finance.
10.  By letter of 4 September 2003, the Orenburg regional department advised the applicant to apply to head office of the Ministry of Finance.
11.  On 6 January 2004 the Ministry of Finance refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service.
12.  On 1 April 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.
13.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the Orenburg Region.
6.  In May 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.
7.  On 21 May 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 21,677.10 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 602 euros). The judgment was not appealed against.
8.  In October 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. The bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 22 December 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.
10.  On 13 March 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.
11.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.
7.  On 1 May 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with another private company. According to the contract, the applicant would locate assets belonging to the debtors of the second company in exchange for a commission. Since the second company failed to comply with the contract, the applicant brought an action against it seeking damages for breach of the contract.
8.  On 8 May 2001 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded it 244,939 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 21,050.46 euros (EUR) at that time).
9.  On 30 January and 9 October 2002 the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova and the Supreme Court of Justice respectively dismissed the second company’s appeals and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, which thus became final.
10.  On 24 December 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant.
11.  On 27 January 2003 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the judgment. It adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant’s action.
12.  Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice in order to quash its judgment of 27 January 2003 and to discontinue the request for annulment proceedings. He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached the applicant’s rights under the Convention.
13.  On 2 November 2004 the Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request. He lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”, see paragraph 16 below) and indicated that the applicant and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement.
14.  By a judgment of 21 February 2005 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Prosecutor’s request for revision on the ground that the parties had not submitted any evidence of the alleged friendly settlement.
4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Rybnik, Poland.
5.  In 1992 and 1993 the prosecutor conducted an investigation in connection with the applicants’ allegedly illegal business activities.
6.  On 16 December 1993 they were charged with fraud.
7.  In July 1994 the applicants were indicted before the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
8.  On 18 October 1994 the trial court held the first hearing.
9.  In 1995 the court held nine hearings. Some of them were adjourned or cancelled due to the absence of witnesses. In 1996, 1997 and 1998 the trial court scheduled numerous hearings. However, most of them were either adjourned due to the absence of witnesses or cancelled.
10.  On 10 December 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to suspended prison terms of one year and six months and two years respectively.
11.  The applicants appealed against the judgment.
12.  The Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held one hearing on 27 April 2000 and on the same date gave judgment. The court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
13.  On 6 September 2000 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held the first hearing.
14.  In January 2001 the court decided that the Gliwice Regional Court was competent to examine the case.
15.  The trial court held hearings in May, July and November 2001. Subsequently, hearings were held at year-long intervals: in October 2002 and September 2003. The hearing in September 2003 was held before the Racibórz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to which, in the meantime, the case had been transferred.
16.  The Racibórz District Court held several hearings and on 28 September 2004 it gave judgment. The trial court convicted the applicants but reduced the suspended prison terms to which they had been sentenced.
17.  The applicants appealed.
18.  On 2 November 2004 the applicants lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about a breach of the right to have their case heard within a reasonable time. They relied on the 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. On 14 December 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the complaints. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings only as regards the period between 2002 and 2004 when the case had been pending before the District Court and established that the proceedings had been conducted diligently. It further held that the trial courts could not be held responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses or illness of the parties.
19.  On 21 February 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed their appeal against the judgment of 28 September 2004. The judgment is final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Poznań, Poland.
5.  On 27 June 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for payment against a certain M.R. with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  The court held a number of hearings and ordered on four occasions that expert evidence be obtained. Expert reports were amended several times.
7.  On 18 November 1993 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the case and referred it to the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
8.  The Regional Court held the first hearing on 18 April 1995.
9.  On 27 June 1995 the court ordered that an additional expert opinion be obtained. The expert submitted his report on 15 April 1996. It was subsequently modified several times at the court’s request.
10.  The Regional Court scheduled 12 hearings. Several of them were adjourned because the parties or expert witnesses had failed to appear.
11.  On 23 December 1999 the court partly granted the claim.
12.  On 31 August 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the first-instance judgment.
13.  On 29 November 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. The court found that the applicant had failed to indicate the grounds for lodging it.
14.  On 26 April 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir.
7.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant, together with a friend of his, quarrelled with a man in a park. The quarrel had turned into a fight and the applicant stabbed the man in his left leg.
The police and the public prosecutor took the statements of the parties, including the applicant. The applicant denied having injured the man. Following their questioning, they were all released.
8.  On 3 July 2002 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir Magistrates' Court filed an indictment against the applicant, on account of assault with a knife and occasioning actual bodily harm. The indictment was not notified to the applicant.
9.  After having examined the case file, on 17 July 2002 the İzmir Magistrates' Court issued a penal order, convicting the applicant and sentencing him to pay 290,805,465 Turkish liras (TRL).
10.  On 30 August 2002 the penal order was notified to the applicant.
11.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant challenged the decision of the İzmir Magistrate's Court, before the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance. He argued that he had been deprived of his right of defence in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
12.  On 11 September 2002 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court, maintaining that it was in accordance with the law and procedure.
13.  On 25 September 2002 the İzmir Public Prosecutor issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the relevant amount. He was warned that in case he failed to pay the due amount, the fine would be converted into prison sentence.
14.  The applicant paid the relevant charge on 26 November 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Chernyakhovsk, the Kaliningrad Region.
5.  On 27 March 2002 the Chernyakhovsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region (the Town Court) allowed the applicant's claim against the Chernyakhovsk housing authority of the Ministry of Defence (квартирно-эксплуатационная часть Министерства Обороны РФ г.Черняховска) for provision of accommodation. The Town Court ordered that the housing authority:
 “...provide Mrs Ponomarenko, whose family comprises one member, with another well-equipped dwelling premises for permanent use having a living surface of no less than established standards of living surface for one person (12 square metres), corresponding to the established sanitary and technical standards and well-equipped in accordance with the standards applied in Chernyakhovsk...”
6.  The Town Court also awarded the applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 3 April 2002 the housing authority allocated to the applicant a one-room flat. However, she did not accept the flat as it did not meet sanitary standards.
8. No appeal was brought against the judgment of 27 March 2002 and it entered into force on 9 April 2002.
9.  On 12 April 2002 the bailiffs' service of the Chernyakhovsk District initiated enforcement proceedings and on 30 April 2002 the defendant executed the judgment of 27 March 2002 as regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
10.  A special commission of the housing authority visited the flat allocated to the applicant on 3 April and concluded, on 12 September 2002, that it was only equipped in part and occupied by another person.
11.  On 23 May 2003 the housing authority unsuccessfully applied to the Town Court for the re-opening of the proceedings due to the newly discovered circumstances. They claimed that according to the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of 11 October 2001, the housing premises of the Ministry of Defence had been handed over to the local administration. Therefore it was not possible to enforce the judgment of 27 March 2002.
12.  On 17 May 2004, following the bailiff's request, the Town Court noted that the housing authority had handed over to the local administration only some housing premises. The court ordered the bailiff to establish which premises were left at the disposal of the housing authority and to provide the applicant with one of them.
13.  On 21 March and 6 April 2005 the bailiff fined the Head of the housing authority for the failure to enforce the judgment of 27 March 2002.
14.  On 26 January 2006 the housing authority and the applicant's representative concluded a social tenancy agreement by which a flat was allocated to the applicant. On 9 February 2006 the applicant signed a document by which she accepted the proposed accommodation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Požega.
5.  On 13 July 1990 the applicant lent a certain amount of money to T.T. who failed to pay it back within the agreed time-period. On 24 June 1992 the Požega Municipal Court gave judgment ordering T.T. to pay back the money to the applicant.
6.  As T.T. failed to pay, on 11 February 1998 the applicant submitted a motion for enforcement (prijedlog za ovrhu). On 12 February 1998 the Požega Municipal Court issued an enforcement order (rješenje o ovrsi) with a view to seizing T.T.'s movable property. On 17 March 1998 T.T. filed an appeal against that order, which was dismissed by the Požega County Court on 10 November 1998.
7.  On 2 December 1998 the Municipal Court decided to register and evaluate T.T.'s movables, including his car.
8.  On 7 December 1998 T.T.'s wife, D.T., filed an objection with the court, claiming that she was the owner of the car which had been registered as T.T.'s property.
9.  On 26 July 1999 the Municipal Court instructed D.T. to institute civil proceedings against the applicant, in order to declare the enforcement on the car inadmissible. On 25 August 1999 D.T. filed a civil action against the applicant to that end. The court accordingly stayed the enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, on 27 March 2001 D.T. withdrew her claim and the enforcement proceedings resumed.
10.  On 27 May 2002 the Municipal Court scheduled an on-site inspection for 20 June 2002 with a view to seizing T.T.'s car. However, the court bailiff failed to seize the car.
11.  On 26 November 2002 the court scheduled another on-site inspection for 17 December 2002. However, the court decision could not be served on T.T. because he had meanwhile changed his residence.
12.  Subsequently, on 15 October 2003 the parties concluded a court settlement. On 5 May 2004 the applicant's lawyer withdrew the enforcement request. Accordingly, on 6 May 2004 the Požega Municipal Court issued a decision terminating the enforcement proceedings.
6. On 17 January 1997 the Skopje Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), determined the amount of the applicant's pension.
7. On 30 January 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Fund's Appeal Commission (Комисија за жалби при Фондот за пензиско и инвалидско осигурување на Македонија) on the ground that his pension entitlement had been incorrectly calculated.
8. On 5 June 1997 the Fund's Appeal Commission dismissed his appeal.
9. On 1 October 1997 the Supreme Court set aside the Fund's decision and remitted the case to the Appeal Commission, pointing out that the administrative body had incorrectly interpreted and applied the national law.
10. On 6 March 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that Article 36 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Закон за пензиското и инвалидското осигурување) (“the Act”) imposed a general ceiling on the amount of pension awards, which determined and had an effect on the highest pension award payable to the applicant.
11. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld his claim and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It held that the applicant's pension had not been calculated correctly and gave instructions as to how the applicant's pension was to be calculated in accordance with the Act.
12. The Commission took no action further to that judgment despite a submission by the applicant of 2 December 1999 that it should not remain silent.
13. On 15 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court, requesting it to render a judgment in the absence of an administrative decision concerning the amount of his pension. On 23 February 2000 he repeated his request before the court.
14. On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on the ground that in the meantime, on 10 May 2000, the Commission had rendered a decision concerning his claim and no judgment instead could have been taken.
15. On 7 June 2000 the applicant challenged the Commission's decision before the Supreme Court as it had again erred in law and had apparently disregarded the court's legal reasoning and instructions given in its judgment of 6 October 1998.
16. On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's complaint and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It repeated its previous findings about wrong application of the law and instructed the Commission to take into consideration its instructions in the subsequent decision-making.
17. On 30 August 2002 the Commission rendered a decision which was not in line with the instructions given by the Supreme Court.
18. On 30 September 2002, the applicant instituted, for the third time, administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on the same grounds as before.
19. On 16 April 2003 the Fund and the applicant concluded a court settlement about the amount of the pension. It was concluded that the amount agreed would be retroactively paid to the applicant from the day when he met the criteria for age-retirement and that the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount agreed would be paid by the Fund in two instalments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and was detained in the Hilvan prison, in Şanlıurfa at the time of the application.
5.  On 11 October 1997 following receipt of information that the applicant was in possession of narcotic substances, police officers from the Siverek Security Directorate arrested the applicant, his son and one of the applicant's employees, İ.Ş., in the applicant's house. During the search of the applicant's house and farm, a certain amount of cannabis was found.
6.  On 12 October 1997 the suspects were brought before the Siverek Magistrates' Court who ordered their detention on remand.
7.  On 14 October 1997, the Siverek Magistrates' Court sent the case file to the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court holding that the case concerned the prosecution of organised drug trafficking.
8.  On 24 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and the two other suspects. The public prosecutor charged them under Article 403 § 5 of the Criminal Code of being in possession of hashish with the aim of trafficking. İ.Ş. was also charged with the consummation of hashish.
9.  On 26 May 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant and İ.Ş. The applicant was sentenced to three years and four months' imprisonment.
10.  On 5 October 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
11.  On 24 November 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court once again convicted the applicant and his co-accused and sentenced them to six years and three months' imprisonment.
12.  On 15 April 1999 the Court of Cassation again quashed the first‑instance court's judgment, holding that the applicant's and his co‑accused's defence rights had not been respect as they had not been informed about the date of the hearing.
13.  On 15 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant and his co-accused and sentenced them to six years and three months' imprisonment. It also ordered their release from detention having regard to the time that they had spent in prison.
14.  On 20 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir.
5.  The applicant is the owner of a potable and industrial water station in İzmir. By a letter dated 9 July 2001 the authorities from the İzmir Health Directorate informed the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor about the fact that the applicant's company was not complying with the requirements of the relevant regulation concerning the packaging and marketing of spring and mineral waters.
6.  On 24 August 2001, in his statements taken by the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor, the applicant maintained that he had been already told by the authorities that the way he was selling water was in breach of the relevant regulation and that he had consequently closed his business earlier that year.
7.  On 28 November 2001 the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor issued an advance payment order of 1,898,208,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) for the applicant, for failure to respect the rule concerning the packaging and marketing of spring and mineral waters, provided in decree law no. 560. The applicant did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the order.
8.  On 14 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Karşıyaka Magistrate's Court, challenging the decision of the Public Prosecutor. He claimed that he had already made a payment. In his submissions to the court, the Public Prosecutor explained that the payment made by the applicant was for a previous offence, which took place on 26 May 1999.
9.  On 22 January 2002 the Karşıyaka Magistrate's Court dismissed the objection and issued a penal order, by which it increased the fine to TRL 2,847.312.000, due to the applicant's failure to comply with the advance payment order.
10.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant filed an objection with the Karşıyaka Criminal Court of First Instance, against the penal order of 22 January 2002, alleging, in particular, a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.
11.  On 4 March 2002 the Karşıyaka Criminal Court of First Instance upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court, holding that it was in accordance with the law.
12.  The applicant paid the fine on 3 May 2002, 28 May 2002 and 2 July 2002, in three equal instalments.